0 views

Uploaded by TJPRC Publications

Tjprc Journals

save

- Forecast
- Terror
- ujian lisan
- docX13ASHTML
- 3.0 Business Forecasting
- ECOFOREindividual.docx
- maranga
- Statistical Forcasting - Excel, ARIMA
- FinEco Term Paper_Ankit Kariya
- Trends, Cycles and Autoregressions
- Multivariate Time Series Analysis
- Wednesday 16h30 Valmir Macario
- Iaetsd Predictive Analysis of Indian Stock Market on Time Series Data Using ARIMA Model
- forecasting.pdf
- forecasting.pdf
- Vision 2023- Assessing the Feasibility of Electricity and Biogas Production From Municipal Solid Waste in Turkey
- Smoothing Models v6
- QM2 Group 15
- qm04
- Arima Model
- Forecasting Techniques
- Time-seres Analysis 2
- Economic
- pm 015 summer 2013
- Prospect Cotton Yarn Export
- Forecasting_Ch5 Till Deseasonalize
- Sales Forecast 4
- Group 4 Presentation
- ContentServer_Sales Forecast for the Indian Tractor Industry for the FY 2012-13
- 10.5923.j.statistics.20140406.06
- mertz_polacca.pdf
- Admoghi.docx
- Guide to Thickness Calculation of Heater & Exchanger Tubes
- citizenshipcases.pdf
- buscar las letras entre simbolos.pdf
- InventarulArhivelorStatului11.pdf
- ACI-318-08 (Spanish)
- Tesis
- Construccion Del Pentadecagono
- iudhbawjfbwhjd
- symbolism of world.pdf
- Rubrica Catálogo de Pigmentos Naturales.doc
- flb5_015o_pami_02o.pdf
- Triptico Diabetes
- Dinamo Bucuresti
- jurnal gilut 9
- fuente_agua_subterranea_coata_0_0.pdf
- 04_TareaA_Costos_y_Presupuesto.pdf
- Idc1 Af Normas Colombianas - Iec
- BobCat_S630 _codes_failures.pdf
- SUKAR NEW
- Practica 2
- MODELO DIETA BAJA DE PESO CONTROL DIAB.docx
- instrumenti-pracenja-nastave234r.doc
- CONTROL DE OBRA LITERARIA MARIA.docx
- Jesús El Exorcista
- MEDIDAS-CAUTELARES-1069.ppt
- 3011
- Kode Pintar Icd 10
- EXAMEN ADMISIÓN UNAL 2017-2.docx
- 3.IJHRMRAUG20183
- 1.IJHRMRAUG20181
- 4.IJMPSAUG20184
- 1.IJMPSAUG20181
- 2.IJHRMRAUG20182
- 6IJMPSAUG20186
- 2.IJMPSAUG20182
- 6IJMPSAUG20186
- 3.IJMPSAUG20183
- 2-33-1531830712-1.IJSMMRDAUG20181
- 2.IJMPSAUG20182
- 4.IJHRMRAUG20184
- 3.IJBMRAUG20183
- 5IJHRMRAUG20185
- 05.IJMPSAUG20185
- 118IJMPERDAUG2018118
- 1.IJTFTAUG20181
- 115IJMPERDAUG2018115
- 2.IJBMRAUG20182
- 1.IJBTRAUG20181
- 119IJMPERDAUG2018119
- 2IJBTRAUG20182
- 2.IJTFTAUG20182
- 4.IJTFTAUG20184
- 3.IJTFTAUG20183
- 121IJMPERDAUG2081121
- 122.IJMPERDAUG2018122
- 1.IJBMRAUG20181
- 1.IJAFMRAUG20181
- 1.IJMMSEAUG20181

You are on page 1of 12

,

Environmental and Infrastructure Engineering

Research and Development (IJCSEIERD)

ISSN(P): 2249-6866; ISSN(E): 2249-7978

Vol. 6, Issue 6, Dec 2016, 1-12

© TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.

**THE CHARACTERS OF TIME SERIES OF MONTHLY NUMBER OF
**

EARTHQUAKES AND FORECASTING PATTERN RECOGNITION

IN HUALIEN COUNTY

KO-MING NI

Department of Information Management, Ling Tung University, Taiwan

ABSTRACT

Hualien County, which is located on the eastern coast of Taiwan, is the area with the most frequent

earthquakes in Taiwan.In the 257 months from January 1995 to May 2016, totally 1,248 out of 3,063 labeled

earthquakes, which accounts for 40.74%, concentrated in that county.The earthquake data are subtracted from the

seismic archive of the Central Weather Bureau (CWB) of Taiwan. Threepurposes are set for this paper. First, to find out

whether the time series of monthly number of earthquakes in the past 257 months in Hualien is random or not. By

checking the autocorrelation function (ACF) and Ljung-Box Q (LBQ) statistic, the author finds that the time series of

Hualien County is not random. Second, to check the time series of the monthly number of earthquakes isstationary or

time series, and the results show that both ADF and PP tests revealed the time series in Hualien is a stationary one.

Third, to find out the pattern of the monthly number of earthquakes by ARIMA(p,d,q) model, and uses it to verify the

accuracy of the past data. As long as the proposed ARIMA(p,d,q) model can predict the number of earthquakes per

month in a certain accuracy, then it can be used to forecast the number of earthquakes per month in the near future.

After several trials, the author finds that ARIMA(2,0,0) is a suitable one. Errors of the forecasted and observed ones are

Original Article

not. The author uses Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) and Philips-Perron (PP) methods to test the stationarity of the

checked by mean absolute deviation (MAD), mean squared error (MSE), root mean squared error (RMSE), and mean

absolute percentage error (MAPE) formulas with different progressive months. Generally speaking, the errors calculated

by MAD, MSE, and RMSE equations are minimum if each time forecast three months. As for the MAPE method, a

severe penaltymay occur if the observed earthquake number is small, even failed if no earthquake is observed in a

month, because zero will show in denominator.By using ARIMA(2,0,0) as a seismic pattern to forecast, the author

obtains that two earthquakes per month will occur in Hualien from June to September, and one earthquake will happen

from October to December in year 2016.

KEYWORDS: CWB Archive, ARIMA (p,d,q) Model, Seismic Pattern

Received: Sep 23, 2016; Accepted: Oct 21, 2016; Published: Oct 24, 2016; Paper Id.: IJCSEIERDDEC20161

INTRODUCTION

Hualien County, which is located on the eastern coast of Taiwan, is the area with the most frequent

earthquakes in Taiwan. In the 257 months from January 1995 to May 2016, totally 1,248 out of 3,063 labeled

earthquakes, which accounts for 40.74%, occurred in that county. In the seismic archive of the Central Weather

Bureau (CWB) of Taiwan, two kinds of records are reported, labeled and unlabeled. The unlabeled ones are those

which are smaller in magnitude and cause influence only locally. On the other hand, the labeled ones are stronger

and affect more than two counties in twenty municipal areas of Taiwan. The labeled sequence always start from

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

2

Ko-Ming Ni

number one in the beginning of a new year. In this study, only labeled earthquakes in Hualien retrieved from CWB archive

are taken into consideration.

A time series is stationary if its mean and variance are constant over time, and if the covariance between two

values from the series depends only on the length of time separating the two values, and not on the actual times at which

the variance are observed (Hill et al.). If a time serious is not stationary, a danger of unrelated data may have significant

regression result. Such regressions are said to be spurious (Hill et al., Hanke and Wichern). In this study unit-root tests,

such as Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) and Philips-Perron (PP) methods are used to check the stationarity of the time

series of the monthly number of earthquakes from January 1995 to May 2016.

Forecastingis an interesting topic. Dozens of algorithms from simplest naïve to more advanced neural networks,

have been proposed (Hanke and Wichern). The author uses one of the most popular methods among them, ARIMA

(Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average) method, to forecast the number of earthquakes per month in Hualien, because

it is versatile and can forecast stationary, trend, cyclical, and even seasonality (Hanke and Wichern, Hyndman and

Athanasopoulos).Furthermore, with different combination of autoregressive order (p), integration degree (d), and moving

average order (q) terms, ARIMA(p,d,q) can be equivalent to methods such as simple exponential smoothing, Hold’s, and

Winters’ (Hyndman and Athanasopoulos). As long as a suitable ARIMA(p,d,q) model is found, then it can be used to

forecast the monthly number of earthquakes for Hualien in the near future. The autocorrelation function (ACF) and

Ljung-Box Q (LBQ) statistic are used to check the randomness of the residuals of the regression results in order to confirm

the suitability of the used ARIMA(p,d,q) model.

**CHARTERS OF MONTHLY NUMBER OF EARTHQUAKES IN HUALIEN
**

Two important characters, randomness and stationarity, of the time series for monthly number of earthquakes in

Hualien will be tested in this section. The randomness check is to make sure the residuals of the regression do not contain

any predictive information, and the stationarity is for avoiding the spuriousness (Hanke and Wichern, Hill et al.).

Before formally checking the randomness and stationarity, the plot of the monthly number of earthquakes in

Hualien from January 1995 to May 2016 as in Figure 1 is visually inspected. The I-Chart used here is purposely to weed

out the months with extremely high earthquake numbers with three standard errors from the mean. Figure 1 reveals that the

time series seems not a white noise or not a randomness.

Number of earthquakes per month

**I Chart of number of earthquakes per month in Hualien
**

1

50

40

30

1

1

1

20

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

11

1

10

UCL=15.18

_

X=4.86

0

LCL=-5.47

M

95

19

01

1

03

05

07

09

11

03

05

07

/0

M

M

M

M

M

08

0M

2M

4M

97

99

01

03

05

20

01

01

01

19

19

20

20

20

2

2

2

m

Su

Year/Month

**Figure 1: Number of Earthquakes Per Month in Hualien from January 1995 to May 2016
**

Impact Factor (JCC): 6.3724

NAAS Rating: 3.01

**The Characters of Time Series of Monthly Number of Earthquakes
**

and Forecasting Pattern Recognition in Hualien County

3

Randomness

From Figure 1, one finds that the mean value of the number of earthquakes per month in Hualien is 4.86 times.

From January 1995 to May 2016 is twenty one years and five months, or more specifically, 257 months. During this time

period, there are only fourteen (14) months with numbers above three standard errors of mean, which is 15.18 times. An

interesting finding is that the month with large number of earthquakes (means above three standard errors) month may be

followed smaller number of earthquakes in the next few months, usually, below average. For example, in June 2012 there

were 51 earthquakes, but next month there were only three (3), which was below the average of 4.86. This phenomenon is

obvious because an earthquake is energy released from the crest. More earthquakes stand for more released energy; hence,

a blundering month is expected after an active one.

The randomness can be checked by whether the autocorrelation coefficients (rk)between observed monthly

number of earthquakes at time t (yt ) and any time lag k (yt-k) are close to zero or not (Hanke and Wichern).

The autocorrelation coefficient has a form like (Hanke and Wichern):

n

rk

y

t k 1

t

y yt k y

n

y

t 1

t

y

, k 0,1, 2,....n

2

(1)

Where

rk

= the autocorrelation coefficient for a lag of k periods

y = the mean of the values of the series

yt

= the observation in time period t

The autocorrelation function (ACF, which is the collection of many autocorrelation coefficients

rk

, k=0, 1, 2…) of

the time series of the monthly number of earthquakes in Hualien from January 1995 to May 2016 is shown as follows:

Autocorrelation Function for Hualien

**(with 5% significance limits for the autocorrelations)
**

1.0

0.8

Autocorrelation

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1.0

1

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Lag

**Figure 2: Autocorrelation Function (ACF) of Number of Earthquakes Per Month in Hualien
**

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

4

Ko-Ming Ni

One common portmanteau test is based on the Ljung-Box Q (LBQ) statistic. If the autocorrelations are computed

from a random (white noise) process, the LBQ has a chi-square distribution with m (the number of time lags to be tested)

degrees of freedom (Hanke and Wichern). The LBQ of different lags of the time series of Hualien is in Table A1 in

Appendix A. Based on the calculated values of LBQ and compare with the chi-squared table, the author can judge that the

time series of the monthly number of earthquakes in Hualien is not random, because the calculated LBQ values are much

larger than the chi-squared values in the related m degrees of freedom at 95% significance level.

Stationarity

A stationary variable is one that is not explosive, nor trending, and nor wandering aimlessly without returning to

its mean (Hill et al.). One can check stationarity of a time series by visual inspection of Figure 1, or by more formal tests,

such as unit-root tests. Two unit-root tests are used to check the stationarity of a time series in this paper, Dickey-Fuller

(DF) and Philips-Perron (PP) tests. The Dickey-Fuller test has a number of variety forms as in Appendix B, and generally

referred as the Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) test (Hill et al.).

The Dickey-Fuller Critical Values

To test the hypothesis in all the cases, we simply estimate the test equation by least squares and examine the

t-statistic for the hypothesis that 0 (Equation B5). Unfortunately, this t-statistic no longer has the t-distribution, rather,

tau ( ) statistic has to be used(Hill et al.). The critical values of tau ( ) statistic are givenin Table B1 in Appendix B.

Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) and Philips-Perron (PP) Tests

The critical values of the Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) test of the time series of the monthly number of

earthquakes in Hualien are shown in Table 1.

Table 1: The critical values and Dickey-Fuller unit-root test results

( t ) Test Statistic

-12.742

**1% Critical Value
**

5% Critical Value

-3.990

-3.430

MacKinnon approximate p-value for ( t ) = 0.0000

**10% Critical Value
**

-3.13.

From the above table, one finds the ( t ) test statistic -12.742 < -3.430 (5% critical value), the hypothesis test

**H 0 : 0 (nonstationary) is rejected, and H 1 : 0 (stationary) is not rejected. In other words, the time series of the
**

monthly number of earthquakes per month is a stationary one.

For making a double check, the author also run the Philips-Perron (PP) unit root test. The critical values are in Table 2.

Table 2: Philips-Perron Unit-Root Test for Stationarity of Time Series of Earthquakes per Month in Hualien

(t ) Test Statistic

**1% Critical Value 5% Critical Value
**

-3.990

-3.430

(

t

)

MacKinnon approximate p-value for

= 0.0000

-12.757

From above table, one can alsofind the hypothesis test

**10% Critical Value
**

-3.13.

H 0 : 0 (nonstationary) is rejected, and H 1 : 0

(stationary) is not rejected. Hence,that the time series of earthquakes per month in Hualien is stationary can be confirmed.

Impact Factor (JCC): 6.3724

NAAS Rating: 3.01

**The Characters of Time Series of Monthly Number of Earthquakes
**

and Forecasting Pattern Recognition in Hualien County

5

**DETERMINING THE SEISMIC PATTERN FOR HUALIEN COUNTY
**

By checking the form of the autocorrelation function (ACF, Figure 1) and partial autocorrelation function (PACF,

Figure C1 in Appendix C), and by trial and error, the author proposes that ARIMA(2,0,0) might be a good candidate.

Before using it as a forecasting model, the residuals after regression shall be checked carefully. If the pattern of residuals

appear like a randomness (white noise), then the proposed model may be a suitable one. The ACF of the residuals of

ARIMA(2,0,0) is shown in Figure 3, and it suggeststhat most of all the residuals are bounded in 95% confidence interval,

and the LBQ values in Appendix D also confirm that the time series of the residuals of ARIMA(2,0,0) is random.

Autocorrelation Function for ARIMA(2,0,0) residuals

(with 5% significance limits for the autocorrelations)

1.0

0.8

Autocorrelation

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1.0

1

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Lag

**Figure 3: The ACF of the Residuals of ARIMA (2,0,0) of the
**

Monthly Number of Earthquakes in Hualien

From Figure 3, the coefficients of different lags are within the limit of 95% confidence interval. And from Table

D1, the calculated LBQ values are smaller thanchi-square with m-s degrees of freedom (dof), wheremis lags and sis

parameters (Hanke and Wichern). Takelags 20 of the residual of ARIMA (2,0,0) as an example, the value of lags m=20,

s=3, dof is m-s=17, then

2

0.05

= 27.59 (dof=17)> 24.89 ( lags=20) in Table D1. It mean that the time series of residuals for

**the ARIMA(2,0,0) model forecasting is a white noise (randomness). More specifically, ARIMA (2,0,0) is a suitable model
**

to forecast Hualien’s monthly number of earthquakes.

**CHECKING ACCURACY AND FORECASTING THE MONTHLY NUMBER OF EARTHQUAKES
**

This section is dedicated to forecast the monthly number of earthquakes in Hualien from July to December in

2016. Before performing the forecasting, the accuracy of the proposed model ARIMA (2,0,0) has to be evaluated first.

The author uses the data from January 1995 to December 2012 as a base, and calculates the average errors from 2013 to

May 2016. Some forecasting error evaluation techniques are used to check the accuracy. They are mean absolute deviation

(MAD), mean squared error (MSE), root mean squared error (RMSE), and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE)

(Hanke and Wichern). The related equation is as follows:

M AD

www.tjprc.org

1

n

n

i 1

y t yˆ t

(2)

editor@tjprc.org

6

Ko-Ming Ni

M SE

1

n

n

y

i 1

1

n

RM SE

M APE

Where

1

n

t

yˆ t

n

y

i 1

t

2

yˆ t

n

y t yˆ t

t 1

yt

(3)

2

(4)

(5)

yt is the observed monthly number of earthquakes and yˆ t is the forecasted monthly number of earthquakes

in Hualien.

By using ARIMA(2,0,0) as the forecasting model, and taking all the data from 1995 to 2012 as a basis file, using

them to forecast number of earthquakes per month in 2013; adding the observed 2013 data to the basis file, and using it to

forecast the numbers in year 2014, and so on and so forth. This procedure repeated until forecasting is finished. For

comparisonof the effect of progressing time on the accuracy of a forecasting, four kinds of progressing time periods are

selected, they are, one (1) month, three (3) months, six (6) months and 12 months. In the following tables, the number in

the parenthesis denotes how many months will be forecasted in each analysis. Say, MAD (3) means in each calculation the

data for every three monthswill be forecasted, and used them to compare with the observed data and check the errors by the

mean absolute deviation (MAD) method. From January 2013 to May 2016different error calculation methods are

expressedfrom Tables 3 to 6.

Table 3: Error Evaluation by the Mean Absolute Deviation (MAD) Method with

Different Progressing Time Periods from Year 2013 to May 2016

2013

2014

2015

2016

MAD(1)

4.72

2.88

3.51

6.31

MAD(3)

4.07

2.65

3.72

5.14

MAD(6)

4.26

2.37

3.50

6.89

MAD(12)

6.67

2.94

3.87

7.03

From Table 3, one finds the MAD errors of each time forecasting 12 months are the largest in comparison with

each time progressing one, three and six months in each year. However, each time progressing one month (MAD(1)) does

not get the most accurate results as one expected. Forecasting three months (MAD (3)) each time is the most accurate in

the analysis, except in year 2015.

Table 4: Error Evaluation by the Mean Squared Error (MSE) Method with

Different Progressing Time Periods from Year 2013 to May 2016

2013

2014

2015

2016

MSE(1)

57.2

9.81

18.2

56.6

MSE(3)

52.1

8.09

18.6

36.6

MSE(6)

55.9

8.51

17.8

62.9

MSE(12)

93.0

14.4

35.4

89.9

Same as MAD, forecasting three months (MSE (3)) each time is the most accurate in the analysis, except in year

2015.

Impact Factor (JCC): 6.3724

NAAS Rating: 3.01

**The Characters of Time Series of Monthly Number of Earthquakes
**

and Forecasting Pattern Recognition in Hualien County

7

**Table 5: Error Evaluation by the Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) Method with
**

Different Progressing Time Periods from Year 2013 to May 2016

2013

2014

2015

2016

RMSE(1)

7.56

3.13

4.26

7.53

RMSE(3)

7.22

2.84

4.31

6.05

RMSE(6)

7.47

2.92

4.22

7.93

RMSE(12)

9.65

3.80

5.95

9.48

Same as MAD, forecasting three months (RMSE (3)) each time is the most accurate in the analysis, except in year

2015.

Table 6: Error Evaluation by the Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) Method with

Different Progressing Time Periods from Year 2013 to May 2016

2013

2014

2015

2016

MAPE(1)(%)

57.77

143.9

136.2

178.0

MAPE(3)(%)

41.33

142.0

160.4

168.9

MAPE(6)(%)

41.42

148.8

142.4

219.1

MAPE(12)(%)

73.40

68.88

65.30

130.5

**By checking the equation of MAPE (Equation 5), if the denominator is zero (no earthquake in that month), this
**

algorithm fails. If the forecasted number differs from the observed one too much, the result of this equation will get severe

penalty. From Table 6, the results are most accurate when progressing 12 months in each forecasting (MAPE(12)) except

2013.In the MAPE(12) column, the average errors of the monthly number of earthquakes forecasted in Hualien from year

2013 to 2015 are between 65.30 to 73.40%, and the average error of the first five months in 2016 is 130.48%, almost twice

as those in the previous three years’. The reason may be due to the fact that the volatility of earthquake data of the first five

months in 2016 makes ARIMA (2, 0, 0) model difficult to trace. The number of earthquakes from January to March, 2016

were less than two times per month, but in April and May there were 16 and 17 times respectively. Those are three standard

errors above the mean value, making ARIMA (2,0,0) respond sluggishly. The number of earthquakes in the remaining

months of year 2016 can be forecasted by ARIMA (2,0,0) model as follows:

Table 7: Forecast the Monthly Number of Earthquakes by

ARIMA(2,0,0) Model from June to December in 2016

Month

June July August September October November December

Numbers

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

Two earthquakes per month will occur from June to September, and one earthquake will happen from October

to December in year 2016.

CONCLUSIONS

After analyzing the characters of monthly number of earthquakes in Hualien and recognizing its pattern, the

following conclusions can be obtained:

The time series for the monthly number of earthquakes from January 1995 to May 2016 is not random by visual

inspection as well as by checking the Ljung-Box Q (LBQ) statistics.

Unit-root tests such as Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) and Philips-Perron (PP) are used to test the stationarity of

the time series of Hualien’s monthly number of earthquakes. The hypothesis test

www.tjprc.org

H 0 : 0 (nonstationary) is

editor@tjprc.org

8

Ko-Ming Ni

rejected, and

H 1 : 0 (stationary) is not rejected. In other words, the time series of the monthly number of

**earthquakes per month in Hualien is a stationary one.
**

**The Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA(p,d,q)) model is used to explore the pattern of the times
**

series of the monthly number of earthquakes in Hualien. Through careful inspection, the author finds

ARIMA(2,0,0) is a good model for forecasting the earthquake number in Hualien County.

**Historicalseismic archive from the Central Weather Bureau (CWB) is evaluated by the proposed ARIMA(2,0,0)
**

model with four kinds of progressive periods (one, three, six and 12 months) for checking the forecasting errors.

Generally speaking, each time forecasting three months can get best results by checking errors with the mean

absolute deviation (MAD), mean squared error (MSE), and root mean squared error (RMSE) formulas. As for the

mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) equation, because it has observed monthly earthquake number in the

denominator, as long as no earthquake occurs in that month, then MAPE algorithm will fail.

**By using ARIMA(2,0,0) as a monthly number of earthquakes forecasting pattern, the author presumes that two
**

earthquakes per month will occur from June to September, and one earthquake will happen from October to

December in year 2016.

REFERENCES

1.

Central Weather Bureau (CWB) of Taiwan. http://www.cwb.gov.tw. Accessed June 20, 2016.

2.

Hanke, J. E., and Wichern, D. W. Business Forecasting, 9th ed. (2009). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

3.

Hill, R. C, Griffiths, W. E, and Lim, G. C. Principle of Econometrics, 4th ed. (2012). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

4.

Salvatore, D., and Reagle, D., Statistics and Econometrics, 2nd ed. (2011). McGraw-Hill et al. Companies, Inc.

5.

Hyndman, R. J. and Athanasopoulos, G.Foresting: Principles and practice. (2014). OTexts.com.

APPENDICES

Appendix A

The first 20 lags of ACF for the time series of number of earthquakes per month in Hualien from January 1995 to

May 2016 is in Table A1.

Table A1: Autocorrelation Function (ACF) of Time

Series of Earthquakes per Month in Hualien

Lag

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Impact Factor (JCC): 6.3724

ACF

0.253363

0.134621

0.032357

0.035332

0.071311

0.099146

0.065798

0.032586

0.045569

0.071694

0.258491

0.09773

t

4.06

2.03

0.48

0.52

1.06

1.46

0.96

0.48

0.66

1.04

3.75

1.34

LBQ

16.69

21.42

21.7

22.02

23.37

25.97

27.13

27.41

27.97

29.35

47.43

50.03

NAAS Rating: 3.01

**The Characters of Time Series of Monthly Number of Earthquakes
**

and Forecasting Pattern Recognition in Hualien County

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Table A1: contd.,

0.083152

1.14

-0.01646

-0.22

0.032727

0.44

0.053085

0.72

0.111392

1.51

0.002764

0.04

0.047006

0.63

0.070735

0.95

9

51.91

51.99

52.28

53.06

56.5

56.5

57.12

58.53

Appendix B

B1: Dickey-Fuller Unit-Root Tests (Hill et al.)

(B1.1) Dickey-Fuller Test 1 (No constant and no trend)

yt yt 1 vt

(B1)

Where

yt yt yt1

(B2)

1

(B3)

t = residuals

(B4)

H 0 : 0 (nonstationary)

(B5)

H 1 : 0 (stationary)

(B6)

(B1.2) Dickey-Fuller Test 2 (With constant but no trend)

yt yt 1 vt

(B7)

(B1.3) Dickey-Fuller Test 3 (With constant and with trend)

yt yt 1 t vt

(B8)

**(B1.4) Dickey-Fuller Test 4 (General form)
**

m

yt yt 1 as yt s vt

s 1

(B9)

As many lagged first difference term are added to ensure that the residuals are not autocorrelated, the number of

t , or the significance of

**lagged terms can be determined by examining the autocorrelation function (ACF) of the residuals
**

the estimated lag coefficients

as . The unit root test

based on the above equation and its variants (intercept excluded or

**trend included) are referred to as augmented Dickey-Fuller test.
**

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

10

Ko-Ming Ni

**Table B1: Critical Values for the Dickey-Fuller Test (Hill et al.)
**

Model

yt yt 1 vt

yt yt 1 vt

y t y t 1 t v t

Standard critical values (tstatistic)

1%

-2.56

5%

-1.94

10%

-1.62

-3.43

-2.86

-2.57

-3.96

-3.41

-3.13

-2.33

-1.65

-1.28

Appendix C

The partial autocorrelation function (PACF) for the time series of monthly number of earthquakes in Hualien from

January 1995 to May 2016 is shown in Figure C1.

Partial Autocorrelation Function for Hualien

**(with 5% significance limits for the partial autocorrelations)
**

1.0

Partial Autocorrelation

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1.0

1

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Lag

**Figure C1: Partial Autocorrelation Function (PACF) of Earthquakes Per
**

Month in Hualien from January 1995 to May 2016

The partial autocorrelation coefficient at lag k is the autocorrelation between

for by lags 1 through k−1. In other words, the partial autocorrelation coefficient is

k

**yt and yt k that is not accounted
**

on

yt k in the regression (Salvatore

and Reagle)

yt 1 yt 1 2 yt 2 ..... k yt k vt

Where

(C1)

i is the regression coefficient, and vt is the residual term.

Appendix D

The first 20 lags of the ACF for the residuals of the ARIMA (2,0,0) model are shown in Table D1.

Table D1: The Autocorrelation Function of the Residuals of ARIMA(2,0,0)

Lag

1

2

3

4

Impact Factor (JCC): 6.3724

ACF

0.001306

0.003682

-0.031164

-0.006395

t

0.02

0.06

-0.50

-0.10

LBQ

0.00

0.00

0.26

0.27

NAAS Rating: 3.01

**The Characters of Time Series of Monthly Number of Earthquakes
**

and Forecasting Pattern Recognition in Hualien County

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

www.tjprc.org

Table D1: Contd.,

0.039164

0.63

0.075745

1.21

0.031990

0.51

-0.002011

-0.03

0.004927

0.08

-0.001304

-0.02

0.243451

3.87

0.024883

0.37

0.048279

0.73

-0.058355

-0.87

0.010618

0.16

0.026277

0.39

0.106358

1.59

-0.046829

-0.69

0.021474

0.32

0.043835

0.65

11

0.67

2.20

2.47

2.47

2.48

2.48

18.51

18.68

19.32

20.25

20.28

20.47

23.61

24.22

24.35

24.89

editor@tjprc.org

- ForecastUploaded bytychester
- TerrorUploaded byRenrew
- ujian lisanUploaded byAndi Mugira Fada
- docX13ASHTMLUploaded byEvelyn
- 3.0 Business ForecastingUploaded bySaiKiran
- ECOFOREindividual.docxUploaded byMark Narciso
- marangaUploaded byEdu Daryl Maceren
- Statistical Forcasting - Excel, ARIMAUploaded byAnonymous rkZNo8
- FinEco Term Paper_Ankit KariyaUploaded byAnkit Kariya
- Trends, Cycles and AutoregressionsUploaded byChemseddine Chourabi
- Multivariate Time Series AnalysisUploaded bydouglasgarciatorres
- Wednesday 16h30 Valmir MacarioUploaded byFausto Lorenzato
- Iaetsd Predictive Analysis of Indian Stock Market on Time Series Data Using ARIMA ModelUploaded byiaetsdiaetsd
- forecasting.pdfUploaded byandresacastro
- forecasting.pdfUploaded byandresacastro
- Vision 2023- Assessing the Feasibility of Electricity and Biogas Production From Municipal Solid Waste in TurkeyUploaded byalikaya12002
- Smoothing Models v6Uploaded byMiloš Milenković
- QM2 Group 15Uploaded byVivek Mehta
- qm04Uploaded byJilani Osmane
- Arima ModelUploaded byjilaniosmane
- Forecasting TechniquesUploaded byfiras_11
- Time-seres Analysis 2Uploaded byirjayanti_pamungkas
- EconomicUploaded byPiyush Patel
- pm 015 summer 2013Uploaded byMohammed Thoufeeq
- Prospect Cotton Yarn ExportUploaded byqadrifarrukh
- Forecasting_Ch5 Till DeseasonalizeUploaded byMaria Salman
- Sales Forecast 4Uploaded byGlory
- Group 4 PresentationUploaded byPawanp73
- ContentServer_Sales Forecast for the Indian Tractor Industry for the FY 2012-13Uploaded byAbhinav Walia
- 10.5923.j.statistics.20140406.06Uploaded bytufan85

- 3.IJHRMRAUG20183Uploaded byTJPRC Publications
- 1.IJHRMRAUG20181Uploaded byTJPRC Publications
- 4.IJMPSAUG20184Uploaded byTJPRC Publications
- 1.IJMPSAUG20181Uploaded byTJPRC Publications
- 2.IJHRMRAUG20182Uploaded byTJPRC Publications
- 6IJMPSAUG20186Uploaded byTJPRC Publications
- 2.IJMPSAUG20182Uploaded byTJPRC Publications
- 6IJMPSAUG20186Uploaded byTJPRC Publications
- 3.IJMPSAUG20183Uploaded byTJPRC Publications
- 2-33-1531830712-1.IJSMMRDAUG20181Uploaded byTJPRC Publications
- 2.IJMPSAUG20182Uploaded byTJPRC Publications
- 4.IJHRMRAUG20184Uploaded byTJPRC Publications
- 3.IJBMRAUG20183Uploaded byTJPRC Publications
- 5IJHRMRAUG20185Uploaded byTJPRC Publications
- 05.IJMPSAUG20185Uploaded byTJPRC Publications
- 118IJMPERDAUG2018118Uploaded byTJPRC Publications
- 1.IJTFTAUG20181Uploaded byTJPRC Publications
- 115IJMPERDAUG2018115Uploaded byTJPRC Publications
- 2.IJBMRAUG20182Uploaded byTJPRC Publications
- 1.IJBTRAUG20181Uploaded byTJPRC Publications
- 119IJMPERDAUG2018119Uploaded byTJPRC Publications
- 2IJBTRAUG20182Uploaded byTJPRC Publications
- 2.IJTFTAUG20182Uploaded byTJPRC Publications
- 4.IJTFTAUG20184Uploaded byTJPRC Publications
- 3.IJTFTAUG20183Uploaded byTJPRC Publications
- 121IJMPERDAUG2081121Uploaded byTJPRC Publications
- 122.IJMPERDAUG2018122Uploaded byTJPRC Publications
- 1.IJBMRAUG20181Uploaded byTJPRC Publications
- 1.IJAFMRAUG20181Uploaded byTJPRC Publications
- 1.IJMMSEAUG20181Uploaded byTJPRC Publications